| Writings | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Advocacy Efforts | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Online Market | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Miscellaneous | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Syndicate |
|---|
| CB Login |
|---|
| CB Online |
|---|
| No Users Online |
| Last comments by AkoComment Tweaked SE | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Coalition Letter on Ideological Exclusion |
|
|
|
| Written by Coalition | ||||
| Wednesday, 18 March 2009 | ||||
|
March 18, 2009 Hon. Eric H. Holder Jr. Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton Secretary of State U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20520 Hon. Janet Napolitano Secretary of Homeland Security U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, D.C. 20528 Dear Attorney General Holder and Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano: Over the last eight years, the Departments of State and Homeland Security revived the practice of “ideological exclusion,” refusing visas to foreign scholars, writers, artists, and activists not on the basis of their actions but on the basis of their ideas, political views, and associations. As a result of this practice, dozens of prominent intellectuals were barred from assuming teaching posts at U.S. universities, fulfilling speaking engagements with U.S. audiences, and attending academic conferences. Many of those barred from the United States were vocal critics of U.S. foreign policy. We are writing to urge you to end this practice. While the government plainly has an interest in excluding foreign nationals who present a threat to national security, no legitimate interest is served by the exclusion of foreign nationals on ideological grounds. To the contrary, ideological exclusion impoverishes academic and political debate inside the United States. It sends the message to the world that our country is more interested in silencing than engaging its critics. It undermines our ability to support political dissidents in other countries. And it deprives Americans of a right protected by the First Amendment. See Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972). No legitimate interest is served by the government’s use of the immigration laws as instruments of censorship. In fact, ideological exclusion is a practice that history had discredited long before the Bush administration. During the Cold War, the United States used the ideological exclusion provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act to bar, among others, Colombian novelist Gabriel García Márquez, Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, Italian playwright Dario Fo, British novelist Doris Lessing, and Canadian writer and environmentalist Farley Mowat. Those exclusions came to be seen as an embarrassment to the country, and virtually no one proposes now that those exclusions served the national interest. History will judge the ideological exclusions of the last eight years in the same way. Such exclusions are ineffective as a matter of security policy and they are inconsistent with the ideals that make this country worth defending. The undersigned organizations are eager to see the new administration commit itself to these ideals. Accordingly, we respectfully ask (1) that you evaluate applicants for admission to the United States on the basis of their actions rather than their political beliefs and associations; (2) that, as to foreign scholars, writers, artists, and activists who are deemed inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act, you exercise your discretion to waive inadmissibility except where articulable national security interests unrelated to the applicant’s political beliefs or associations make waiver inappropriate; and (3) that you immediately revisit the specific cases listed below:
Ideological exclusion compromises the vitality of academic and political debate in the United States at a time when that debate is exceptionally important. The practice was misguided during the Cold War and it is misguided now. We strongly urge you to end the practice and to immediately revisit the cases noted above. Sincerely, The Advocates for Human Rights African Services Committee American Anthropological Association American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of Massachusetts American Association of University Professors American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression American Civil Liberties Union American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California American Federation of Teachers American Friends Service Committee – Project Voice American Gateways American Immigration Lawyers Association American Library Association American Political Science Association American Sociological Association American Statistical Association American Studies Association The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund The Asian Law Caucus Association of American Publishers Association of Research Libraries Bill of Rights Defense Committee Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights California Scholars for Academic Freedom Center for Campus Free Speech Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights The Center for Women's Health and Human Rights at Suffolk University Citizens for Health Chicago Branch, National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression Colombia Support Network Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism The Constitution Project Defending Dissent Foundation Equal Justice Society Feminists for Free Expression First Amendment Project Friends Committee on National Legislation General Commission on Religion and Race, The United Methodist Church Hitec Aztec Collaborations/FM Global Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project Immigration Justice Clinic at John Jay Legal Services, Inc. Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action Just Foreign Policy Justice Now The Juvenile Justice Clinic at the University of North Carolina School of Law Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area Liberty Coalition Linguistic Society of America Maria Baldini-Potermin & Associates, P.C. Masterman Institute on the First Amendment and the Fourth Estate at Suffolk University Law School Middle East Studies Association The Multiracial Activist Muslim American Society of Boston Muslim Bar Association of New York Muslim Public Affairs Council National Coalition Against Censorship National Council of Jewish Women National Economic and Social Rights Initiative National Education Association National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild New England First Amendment Center at Northeastern University New York Civil Liberties Union The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University Oak Institute for Human Rights at Colby College Office of the Americas Open Society Policy Center PEN American Center The Rutherford Institute The Sikh Coalition Society of American Law Teachers South Asian Americans Leading Together United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society United Steel Workers AFL-CIO Washington Defender Association’s Immigration Project cc: David Martin, Principal Deputy General Counsel Esther Olavarria, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy David Ogden, Deputy Attorney General Janice L. Jacobs, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs Dr. Anne-Marie Slaughter, Director, Policy Planning Staff Footnotes: 1 Professor Habib’s exclusion is the subject of ongoing litigation. Am. Sociological Ass’n, et al. v. Clinton, et al., No. 07-cv-11796 (D. Mass. filed Sept. 25, 2007). 2 Professor Ramadan’s exclusion is the subject of ongoing litigation. Am. Acad. of Religion, et al. v. Napolitano, et al., No. 08-0826-cv (2d Cir.). Add as favourites (92) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 1199
Only registered users can write comments. Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6 |
||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|